!i?^- "1 




an-^ 



X/\/u 



J^^a^ isMiUjri^. 



gto^liU^^ ^ 



fk y{ (T-W - XjLjyryUXAAj 



J, 



rUlAA'^ 



IruB 



!)lt 



vun^. 



■i 



^. 




Class J: (^ fX^ 
Book_^--_iA_ 



•t '(>,, AFFAIR!? IN KANSAS TERRITORY 



SPEECH 



OP 



HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL, OF ILLINOIS, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OP THE UN-ITED STATES, MARCH 14, 1850, 



On ike molio7i to print thirty-one thousand extra copies of the Repori,s 
yf the Majority and Minority of the Committee on Territories^ in 
reference to Affairs in Kansas. 



WASHINGTON, D. C. 
BDKLL k BLANCHARD, PRINTER 

185G. 



^FF_^IRS IN K:A.]SrSA.S. 



In Senatb, Friday, March 14, 1856. 
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I ask leave to make a 
report on the resolution referred to the Committee on 
Printing on Wednesday last, to print sixty-two thousand 
copies of the majority and minority reports of the Com- 
mittee 0,1 Territories in relation to Kansas affairs. The 
eost of priming sixiy-two thousand extra copie.^ as pro- 
posed by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Puon,] will be 
«2,21:3. The Corarnitt=e on Prinlinj have authorized me 
to report in favor of printing thirty-one thousand instead 
of sixty two thou?aud--just half the number. Sixty-two 
ihousaud would give o:ie thousand copies to eaeh Senator ; 
but we have thoayht that five hundred would he sufficient 
ft 18 for the Scnaie to judge, however. We report in favor 
of printing thiriy-one thousand of those two reports from 
Uio Committee on Territories, the cost of which will be 
Sl,106. 

The PRESIDENT. The question is on concurring in I 
the report ot the committee. 

Mr. TRUMBULL said : Mr. President, I can- 
not consent, entertaining the views whi«h I hold 
that this report shall go before the country without 
expressing my dissent. I am aware, sir, that it 
13 here accompanied by a minority report, which 
in my judgment, presents this Kansas question in 
a masterly manner. It utterly refutes the major- 
ity report upon the great question at issue : but 
having been prepared without an opportunity to 
examine the majority report, it was impossible 
that It could meet and expose all its unfounded 
assumptions. Had the two reports gone out to- 
gether, I would have been content; but, sir the 
report of the majority has already been placed 
before the country, unaccompanied by that of the 
minority. It was sent out in advance of its de- 
livery to the Senate, and has appeared in a news- 
paper published in the city of New York before it 
cold be printed in Washington; and containing 
as in my judgment it does, many unwarranted 
assumptions, many inconsistencies, many false 
deductions from admitted premises, and advanc- 
ing many erroneous propositions, I cannot consent 
that it shall now pass from our consideration un- 
noticed, inasmuch as, losing this opportunity, we 
may not Eoon have another to express our views 
upon it, 



In the remarks which I have to make, I haye 
no idea of putting myself, or the State which I 
have the honor in part to represent, in the posi- 
tion of defending any such doctrines as the ma- 
jority report seeks, by argument rather than by 
direct assertion, to attribute to those who diflFer 
from its conclusions. 

I do not intend to justify interference in the 
internal affairs of Kansas by the people of any 
portion of the Union, contrary to law, and in Tio"- 
lation of the Kansas-Nebraska act. I do not 
design to justify either insurrection or treason ia 
any quarter ; nor am I to be frightened from a 
statement of what I believe to be the true condi- 
tion of things in Kansas, by the cry qf insurrection 
and treason, where none exist. While opposed 
to insurrectionists and traitors, I am equally 
opposed to tyrants and usurpers ; and would be 
as ready to assist in putting down the one as the 
other. 

I deny, sir, that there is occasion to speak of 
any of the inhabitants of Kansas as traitors to 
this Government, or that there is any insurrec- 
tion in that Territory, such as has been indicated 
in some of the documents which have been sent 
to this body. 

In discussing this matter, it is important to 
keep in view the distinction between a State and 
a Territorial Government. Much is said in the 
report before us of the injustice of one State inter- 
fering in the domestic affairs of another— much 
about the impropriety of attempting to impose an 
inequality on any of the States. Is there any 
man in this land who ever thought that the citi- 
zens of one State had a right to interfere with the 
domestic institutions of any other State or is 
there one who denies that the States of this'union 
are entitled to equal rights? Is that the position 
of those who have opposed the measure which 
has caused the present agitation, and is threaten- • 
ing us with civil war? 

Sir, the people whom I in part represent ente»- 

ain no such views. The people of the State of 

il.nots, permit me to say, are loyal to this Union. 

to the Constitution, and all provisions of the Con- 

Btitotion; and when they condemned tht» iei»art- 



ure from the measures of 1850 by the repeal of 
the Missouri Compromise, and the opening afresh 
of this dangerous Slavery question — which, to use 
the language of the distinguished Senator from 
"Michigan, [Mr. Cass,] is the only question " which 
can ever put to hazard our Union and safety " — 
they had not the remotest idea of interfering with 
the domestic institutions of the States. Why, I 
ask, is it eternally thrust in the faces of those who 
oppose the extension of Slavery into free territory^ 
that they want to produce an inequality among 
the States ? Whether Slavery shall be permitted 
to extend into Territories belonging to the United 
States, from which it was excluded by acts of 
Congress for more than a generation, is quite 
another thing from going into the States, and in- 
terfering with the institution there. Persons who 
were opposed to the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise, and who are now opposed to the spread 
of Slavery to the Territory it made free, are not 
Abolitionists, though they may be falsely so called. 
The expression " abolitionize " appears in this 
report, is sometimes used in this Chamber, as also 
the epithet '' Black Republican ; " but I trust that 
neither Senators nor the people are to be driven 
from a just consideration of public measures by 
the fear of incurring some opprobrious epithet, 
applied to them by those who have no other argu- 
ment to offer. The veriest simpleton in your 
streets may cry out " Black Republican " or " Ab- 
olitionist.'' I do not design applyins: offensive 
names to the people of any part of this country, 
nor is it my intention to say anything offensive 
to any gentleman upon this floor, or to advocate 
any other doctrines than those which have been 
handed down to us by the Democratic fathers of 
the Republ'ic. My position on the subject of 
Slavery is the one occupied by all parties, but a 
very few years ago — by men in the South as well 
aa in the North. 

Having said thus much, I propose to refer to 
some portions of this report. And the first prop- 
osition to which I desire to call attention, is tlae 
argument to show that the power of Congress to 
regulate the Territories of the United States is 
derived from that clause in the Constitution which 
authorizes the admission of new States' into the 
Union. I think it is not very material whence 
fcke power of Congress to regulate the Territories 
ia derived ; it is enough that it exists ; but in 
hunting for that power, it occurs to me that one 
of the last causes from which it can be properly 
deduced is that from which the committee seek 
to derive it. The power " to admit new States " 
into the Union gives to Congress, says this report, 
the power to govern Territories ! Why, sir, the 
very action recommended by the committee con- 
tradicts the assumption. The report concludes 
with the statement that a bill is to be introduced 
to authorize the people of the Territory of Kansas, 
when its population shall have attained a certain 
nnmber, to form a State Government, preparatory 
to admission into the Union. The power to pass 
auch an act may be derived, perhaps, from the 
clause in the Constitution of the United States 
which authorizes the admission of new States ; 
and the very fact that a new law is necessary 
since the act was passed organizing the Territory 



of Kansas, in order to admit it into the Union, 
shows that the first act was not passed with that 
view. The first act does not provide for the ad- 
mission of Kansas as a State ; and yet we are 
gravely told, in this document, tlaat the only power 
which the Congress of the United States has to 
form a Territorial Government, is that which is 
derived from the power to admit a new State ! 

I have no difficulty, myself, in finding tho 
power in that other clause of the Constitution 
which declares that " Congress shall have power 
' to make all needful rules and regulation 3 respect- 
' ing the territory or other property belonging to 
' the United States." I see no propriety in limit- 
ing the word "territory" merely to land. The 
men who framed our Constitution understood the 
English language. They would not have used 
more words than were necessary to express tho 
idea they had in view. If the design was simply 
to allow Congress under that provision to make 
needful rules and regulations respecting the prop- 
erty of the United States, why say " the terri- 
tory or other property ? " It would have been 
sufficient to have said, simply, "they shall hava 
' authority to make all needful rules and regula- 
' tions respecting the property belonging to the 
' United States." But, sir, they did not stop there. 
They said respecting "the territory" as well as 
the "other" property, and it should be borne in 
mind that the fraraers of the Constitution were ■ 
laying the foundations for a political Government. 
The great object in view was to prepare a Con- 
stitution for the government of persons, not 
merely to regulate the saIc of lands. At that 
very time there was belonging to the United 
States the Northwestern Territory, and provision 
had then been made for its government. Some 
of the very men in the Convention which formed 
the Constitution had co-operated in passing the 
Ordinance of l'?87 respecting that Territory, and 
they doubtless incorporated this clause in tho 
Constitution, with the very intention of contiuu- 
ing the power to govern it. 

In view of these facts, is it reasonable to sup- 
pose that they intended the word " territory " in 
that limited sense which the committee hav« 
thought proper to give it? 

Sir, there are other clauses in the Constitution 
of the United States from which this power might 
be derived. There is tho treaty-making power. 
Can it be said that this great Government was 
formed with authority to declare war and make 
peace, and yet was left without the power to pro- 
vide a temporary Government for the countries it 
might, at any time, by the chances of war, con- 
quer and possess ? Wo should not be an inde- 
pendent nation if we had not this power to ac- 
quire territory by the force of arms, and, when 
we obtained it, to protect and govern its inhabit- 
ants until they should become sufficiently numer- 
ous to form a State Government for themselves. 
But, sir, I will not dwell on this. The power 
is admitted, but it is admitted to a very limitt il 
extent. Here I wish to point out one of the in- 
consistencies of the report. It says : 

" So far aa the organization of a Territory may 
' be necessary and proper as a means of carrying 
' into effect the provision of tho Conjtitution for 



♦ the admission of new States, and when exercised 

* with reference only to that end, the power of 

♦ Congress is clear and explicit; but. beyond that 
' point the authority cannot extend." 

The proposition is here broadly laid down, that, 
beyond the point of providing the means of carry- 
ing into effect the provision for the admission of 
new States, the power to govern the Territories 
does not exist. Is that true? Can it be main- 
tained ? Is it one of the necessary means, in order 
j to admit a Territory into the Union as a State, 
that Congress should govern it before it comes 
in? Is the exercise of the power conferred by 
the Kansas-Nebraska act necessary for the ad- 
naission of those Territories as States into the 
Union? What is that act? A long law, contain- 
ing thirty-seven sections, and providing for those 
Territories Governors and Legislatures, judges 
and marshals ; definingthe jurisdiction of justices 
of the peace, and providing all the machinery for 
the Territorial Governments. I desire to know 
what the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace, or 
any of these provisions, have to do with the ad- 
mission of Kansas into the Union as a State? 
Can the position be maintained for a moment, 
that it is necessary or proper, as preliminary to 
the admission of a State into this Union, that 
Congress should declare that a Territorial justice 
of the peace should not have jurisdiction in cases 
exceeding $100, or relating to real estate? If 
the assumptions of this report are correct, such 
is the case ; for we are told that it is only when 
the power of Congress is exercised in reference 
to the admission of a new State, that it has any 
right to legislate for a Territory, and of course it 
will not be contended that the Kansas-Nebraska 
act is not constitutional. 
Again, it is said: 

"The act of Congress for the organization of 

the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska was 

designed to conform to the spirit and letter of 

' the Federal Constitution, by preserving and 

' maintaining the fundamental principle of equal- 

' ity among all the States of the Union, notwith- 

* standing the restriction contained in the eighth 
' section of the act of the 6th of March, 1820, 
' preparatory to the admission of Missouri into 
' the Union." 

I would like to know from the committee what 
under heaven the organization of a Territorial 
Government in Kansas has to do with equality 
among all the States? What has it to do with 
the equality of right between New York and Ohio, 
Illinois and Georgia? Still, that is the object 
which is avowed, to preserve equality among the 
States, and that " notwithstanding the restriction 
' contained in the eighth section of the act of the 
' 6th of March, 1820, preparatory to the admission 
' of Missouri into tlie Union, which assumed to 
' deny to the people forever the right to settle the 
' question of Slavery for themselves, provided they 
' should make their homes and organize States 

• north of 3G° 30^ north latitude." Did the eighth 
eection of the act preparatory to the admission of 
Missouri into the Union assume what is here 
charged? That provision, in my judgment, has 
been very much misunderstood. It is a provision 
relating to the " territory" north of 36° 30' north 



latitude, and not to the States to be formed out oi 
it. I have not the provision before me, but 1 
know that it provides, substantially, that "in all 
that territory" north of 30° 30', Slavery shall be 
forever prohibited. The word "forever" occurs 
in it ; and that word seems to be very potent, 
in the estimation of some gentlemen ; but, like 
the word " hereafter," or any other word used in 
a law in reference to a Territory, it ceases to have 
effect whenever the Territory ceases to exist. 
After the Territory is admitted into tie Union as 
a State, the laws providing for its government 
while a Territory become nugatory, unless some 
provision be made for their continuance. 

It is conceded by all, that any of the old Staten 
may abolish or establish Slavery at pleasure ; and, 
as a new State is admitted into the Union on an 
equal footing with the original States, it has, when 
admitted, the same right, whether there had been 
an inhibition against Slavery while it was a Ter- 
ritory or not. The Missouri Compromise would 
therefore have an end as fast as the Territory 
north of 36° 30' was formed into States and ad- 
mitted into the Union. The provision applies 
in terms to the "territory," and not to the States 
which might afterwards be formed out of that 
territory. The constant attempt to make prom- 
inent the equality of the States, as if somebody 
doubted it, and to assimilate States to Territories, 
is only calculated to confuse the mind. It is de- 
sirable that the people of the South should un- 
derstand that there is no disposition in the North 
to interfere with the rights of the people in any 
State of this Union in reference to Slavery. They 
should cease to believe that there is any consid- 
eraole number of persons entertaining such a sen- 
timent ; for I leave out of my remarks that little 
fraction of fanatics, some of whom may be found 
both North and South, who are hostile to the 
Union of the States, who bear no considerable 
proportion to the people of this Union, North or 
South, and with whose disorganizing schemes the 
great mass of those who are to-day opposing the 
spread of Slavery have no more sympathy than 
the slaveholders themselves. 

Mr. TOUCEY. Will the Senator allow mc to 
ask him a question for information ? 

Mr. TRUMBULL. Certainly. 

Mr. TOUCEY. I wish to ask the Senator 
whether, in his opinion, a restriction of that kind 
can be imposed on a new State, as a con<litii)n of 
admission into the Union? 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I shall, be very happy to 
answer the Senator. The propriety of admitting 
a State into the Union is to be determined w'len 
that State makes application for admission. It is 
not an absolute right. Congress is not bound to 
admit into the Union every new Slate which pre- 
sents a republican Constitution, whether tolerating 
Slavery or containing a provision prohibiting iv. 
It is a matter to be decided under the circum- 
stances existing at the time ; and if ever an ap- 
plication shall be made, while I have the hono)' to 
hold a seat here, either by a State presenting a 
free or a slave Constitution, and I shall believe 
that the admission of such State into this unioii 
will seriously endanger its existence, I will u.ive: 
' give my vote for its admission. If Utah with her 



% 



plurality wife system, and other obnoxious pro- 
visions in her Constitution, tending in my judg- 
ment to sap the foundations of our institutions if 
admitted to an equal heritage with us, should 
ask admission, Congress would have the right, 
as I conceive, to refuse it until the obnoxious 
provisions were stricken out. 

In advocating these views, I am committing 
nobody but myself, for I am not speaking for any 
political organization in the country. I would 
not undertake to speak for Senators on the oppo- 
site side of this Chamber, although from child- 
hood up I have always maintained, to the extent 
of my ability, Democratic principles, and sus- 
tained Democratic men. I have done so on prin- 
ciple, believing the policy of the Democratic 
party best for the interests of the country. I 
never was one of those, however, who supported 
a measure without examination, merely because 
it was proposed by political friends ; or con- 
demned it without investigation, simply because 
it came from a political opponent. Having, my- 
self, been united with none of the new parties 
of the day, whether they be called Republican or 
American, or by any other name — having been 
associated with no political organization in my 
life, public or private, except the Democratic 
party, it will not be understood that, in the 
views which I advance, I profess to speak for 
anybody except for myself, and the constituency 
I in part represent. 

Another branch of this report, to which I desire 
call attention, is in these words : 

" In obedience to the Constitution, the Kansas- 
' Nebraska act declared, in the precise language 
' of the Compromise Measures of 1 850, that ' when 
' admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any 
' portion of the same, shall be received into the 
' Union with or without Slavery, as their Consti- 
' tution may prescribe at the time of their ad- 
' mission.' " 

From this clause, which has no practical effect 
whatever, either in the Conpromise Measures of 
1850 or the Kansas-Nebreska act, it has been 
contended that the Compromise Measures of 1850 
were inconsistent with the Compromise of 1820. 
I deny the position. There is no inconsistency 
between them. The Missouri Compromise, as 
already shown, did Bot prevent the admission of 
a State into the Union with or without Slavery, 
as its Constitution might prescribe at the time of 
its admission. The clause incorporated into the 
Kansas-Nebraska act does not have the effect to 
bring a State into the Union, either with or with- 
out Slavery, or to bind any future Congress to do 
so. Congress will act on that question when it 
arises. When Kansas shall present herself, with 
a Constitution either establishing or prohibiting 
Slavery, is there any Senator who will consider 
himself bound by a declaratory provision inserted 
in the act organizing her Territorial Government ? 
I presume not. This report concludes with the 
recommendation of the passage of a bill to enable 
the people of Kansas to form a State Government. 
b it not competent for Congress, if it should think 
proper, to insert in that bill a provision that this 
particular clause shall be repealed, or to insert 



a clause, that Slavery shall not exist in Kansas 
while a Territory? 

The assumption, then, that the clause which I 
have cited, and which was inserted in the Terri- 
torial acts of 1850, is inconsistent with the Mis- 
souri Compromise, is not maintainable, unless 
you say that the Missouri Compromise, prohibit- 
ing Slavery in a Territory, is to have effect after 
that Territory becomes a State, which I deny. 
This report proceeds to quote further from tho 
Kansas-Nebraska act, as follows : 

"It being the true intent and meaning of this 
' act, not to legislate Slavery into any State or 
' Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to 
' leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
' and regulate their domestic institutions in their 
' own way, subject only to the Constitution of 
' the United States." 

Why thrust into this provision the word State f 
as if there were somebody in the country who 
wanted Congress to legislate Slavery into a State 
or out of a State ? No person, as far as I know, 
maintains such a position ; and it is well known 
that this clause in the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
couched in the language in which it is, has given 
rise to various constructions in different parts of 
the Union. I believe it is the universal under- 
standing with Southern men, that under this 
provision they have a right to go with their 
slaves into the Territory of Kansas, and hold 
them there as such. A majority of those who 
voted for the Kansas-Nebraska act, and who car- 
ried it through Congress, understand that the 
moment the Missouri Compromise was repealed, 
those Territories were open to the admission of 
Slavery. This has been the practical operation 
of the law. I have in my possession the proceed- 
ings of a mass meeting held in the Territory of 
Kansas, as early as September, 1854, before any 
Territorial Legislature convened, and of course 
before there was any legislative action in the 
Territory on the subject of Slavery. Among their 
resolutions I find these, endorsing the principles 
of the Kansas Squatter Society : 

" That Kansas Territory, and as a consequence 
' the State of Kansas, of right should be, and 
' therefore shall be, Slave Territory. 

" We hereby declare that, as this [Squatters'] 
' society embraces nine-tenths of the present set- 
' tiers of this Territory, we are entitled to and 
' will exercise the right of expelling from the Ter- 
' ritory, or otherwise punishing, any individual 
' or individuals who may come among us, and 
' by act, conspiracy, or other illegal means, en- 
' tice away our slaves, or clandestinely attempt 
' in any way or form to affect our rights of prop- 
' erty in the same." 

How did it happen that there were slaves in 
the Territory at that early day, and that nine- 
tenths of the settlers should resolve to expel from 
the Territory any individual who should attempt 
to affect their fight of property in the same, un- 
less, in the absence of any local law on the sub- 
ject, the pro-slavery party supposed they had a 
right to hold slaves in the Territory? This ac- 
tion of the Squatters' Society took place before 
the first emigrants who went to Kansas under the 
patronage of the Emigrant Aid Society had ar-' 



rived in the Territory, and shows, not only thr 
eonstruction the Squatters' Society put on the 
Kansas-NeUraska act, but a fixed determination, 
from the outset, to force Slavery into Kansas by 
yiolence. 

I am aware that the Kansas act was differently 
nnderstood in some other parts of the Union. 
The distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. 
Cass] believes, if I understand his position cor- 
rectly, that Slavery cannot exist without a mu- 
nicipal law to protect it ; and that, in the absence 
of any local law on the subject, Slavery cannot 
legaTly exist in any of our Territories. That was 
the doctrine of the whole country a few years 
ago. The committee hare not thought proper to 
tell us, in this lengthy report, whether it is the 
doctrine now. Such was formerly the law. South 
as well as North. I wish to read an extract, not 
however from this report, which I have taken 
spon this subject. It is this : 

" The relation of owner and i^lave is, in the 
' States of the Union in which it has legal exist- 
' ence, a creature of municipal law. Although, 
' perhaps, in none of them a statute introducing 
' it as to the blacks can be produced, it is be- 
' lieved that in all, statutes were passed for reg- 
' ulating and dissolving it." 

Here is a direct assertion that Slavery, in the 
States where it exists, is a creature of municipal 
law ; and from what source do you suppose it 
comes? Probably the "New England Emigrant 
Aid Society " have advanced that opinion. No, 
sir ; it is the doctrine promulgated in the State 
of Louisiana, by its Supreme Court, (14 Martin's 
Louisiana Reports, 401.) Again, I read from an- 
other decision : 

" Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws 
' of nature ; it exists, and can only exist, through 
* municipal regulations." 

Whence do you suppose this sentiment comes, 
which, if promulgated in Kansas, would subject 
its author to punishment ? It was proclaimed 
as law by the courts of Mississippi, and is to 
be found in 1 Walker's Mississippi Reports, at 
page 86. I could detain the Senate for hours in 
reading ftom. the opinions of courts, in various 
sections of the Union, establishing this same prin- 
ciple ; but a change has occurred. The entire 
South, so far as I know, and some even in the 
North, now repudiate the doctrine, and those who 
still adhere to it are stigmatized by many as Ab- 
olitionists. This is an evidence of the advance 
which pro-slavery sentiments are making in the 
eountry. 

But, sir, the Kansas-Nebraska act is under- 
stood differently in different sections of the Union, 
in another respect. In the North, it is very gen- 
erally insisted, that under that act the Territorial 
Legislature has the right to establish or abolish 
Slavery ; but in the South, that position is con- 
troverted. The assumption is now put forth, that 
Slavery, by virtue cf the Constitution of the 
United States, may lawfully exist in the Territo- 
ries, and that the Territorial Legislatures have 
no power to exclude it. 

The Kansas-Nebraska act, having, as has been 
shown, no fixed and certain principle, but subject 
to as many different versions as there are sections 



in the Union, and upon which opposite construc- 
tions may be put with equal plausibility, to suit 
the peculiar views of each locality, is the law 
which is so much extolled in this report, which, 
however, omits to explain the meaning of the 
principle it so much eulogizes, and about which 
so much controversy has arisen ; but its author, 
[Mr. Douglas,] in a speech delivered in this 
body, in 1850, showed the fallacy of the positions 
now assumed by the South, and that to prohibit ' 
Slavery in a Territory was no violation of South- 
ern rights. He then said : 

" What share had the South in the Territories ? 
' or the North ? or any other geographical divis- 
' ion unknown to the Constitution ? I answer, 

* none ; none at all. The Territories belong to 
' the United States as one people, one nation, and 
' are to be disposed of for the common benefit of 
' all, according to the principles of the Constitu- 
' tion. Each State, as a member of the Confed- 
' eracy, has a right to a voice in forming the rules 
' and regulations for the government of the Ter- 
' ritories; butthedifferentsections — North, SoutL, 
' East, and West — have no such right. It is no 
' violation of Southern rights to prohibit Slavery, 
' nor of Northern rights to leave the people to 
' decide the question for themselves." 

Again, in the same speech, my colleague said : 
" Some species of property are excluded by 
' law in most of the States, as well as Territories, 
' as being unwise, immoral, or contrary to the 
' principles of sound public policy. For instance, 
' the banker is prohibited from emigrating to Min- 
' nesota, Oregon, or California, with his bank. 
' The bank may be property by the laws of New 
' York, but ceases to be so when taken into a 
' State or Territory where banking is prohibited 
' by the local law. So, ardent spirits, whisky, 
' brandy, all the intoxicating drinks, are recog- 
' nised and protected as property in most of the 
' States, if not all of them ; but no citizen, 
' whether from the North or South, can take this 
' species of property with him, and hold, sell, or 
' use it at his pleasure, in all the Territories, be- 
' cause it is prohibited by the local law — in Ore- 
' gon by the statutes of the Territory, and in the 
' Indian country by the acts of Congress. Not 
' can a man go there, and take and hold his slave, 

* for the s.ame reason. These laws, and man/ 
' others involving similar principles, are directed 
' against no section, and impair the rights of no 
' State of the Union. They are laws against the 
' introduction, sale, and use, of specilJc kinds of 
' property, whether brought from the North or 
' the South, or from foreign countries." 

The distinguished Senator from Michigan, in 
his speech when the Kansas-Nebraska act was 
under consideration, devoted a large portion of it 
to this question, and proved conclusively that 
the exclusion of slaves from a Territory was no 
encroachment uj)on the equal rights of the people 
of the South. 

Now, sir, I assort that the boasted priucipie of 
the Kansas-Nebraska act, which is claimed to be 
nf such vital moment, has no sort of importance 
except for evil, in consequence of iUs vagnei:io.";f5 
and uncertainty' that it is a princijile which is 



8 



not understood alike in the North and in the 
South ; and that, while much pains in taken in 
the report to discuss constitutional questions, it 
does not inform us whether, under the Constitu- 
tion and the Kansas act, slaves may rightly be 
taken to and held in that Territory, in the ab- 
sence of any municipal law on the subject. Nor 
are we told distinctly, in the report, whether the 
Territorial Legislature has a right to prohibit or 
to establish Slavery. I admit it does tell us that 
the people of the Territory are to regulate their 
own domestic institutions in their own way ; but 
when, is not said. 

This clause is understood by some to apply to 
'.he people of a Territory when they come to 
form a State Government, and that they are to be 
permitted then, and nol before, to regulate their 
own domestic institutions in their own way. 
That I believe to be the Southern understanding 
of the bill. But the author of the report has 
not thought proper to tell us distinctly whether 
it is his understanding or not. 

I come next to that portion of the report which 
rtssails the Emigrant Aid Society. Sir, I am not 
the apologist of that society. There are Sena- 
tors here much better acquainted with its opera- 
tions, and much more capable of defending it, if 
it needs defence, than I am ; but I wish to look 
at it in the light in which it is presented in this 
report. I will not travel out of the record after 
rumors, as has sometimes been charged, but will 
Jake the statements of the report itself, and then 
«all the attention of the Senate to the doctrines 
which were promulgated when the Kansas-Ne- 
braska act was passed, and ask whether there be 
anything in the action of the Emigrant Aid So- 
k-iety, as net forth, not as argued, in the report, at 
nil inconsistent with the doctrines which were 
promulgated on all sides of the Senate when 
tJiat act was under consideration. The report 
says : 

" Although the act of incorporation does not 
" distinctlj' declare that the company was formed 
■' for the purpose of controlling the domestic in- 
•■' Btitutions of the Territory of Kansas, and forc- 

• ing it into the Union with a prohibition of 
' Slavery in her Constitution, regardless of the 

■ rights and vnshes of the people, as guarantied by 
■' the ConsiUution of the United States, and secured 

• by their organic law, yet the whole history of 

• the movement, the circumstances in which it 
' had its origin, and the professions and avowals 
' of all engaged in it, render it certain and unde- 

■ niable that such was its object." 

Thus the charge is distinctly made, that the 
object of the Emigrant Aid Society was, " regard- 
' less of the rights and wishes of the people, as 
' guarantied by the Constitution of the tjnited 
' States, and secured by their organic law," "to 
' force Kansas into the Union with a prohibition 

■ of Slavery in her Constitution." Let us see 
how that charge compares with the declarations 
of Senators at the time the bill was under con- 
sideration. The Senator from New Hampshire 
[Mr. HAiifi] took the trouble, a few days since, 
to read to the Senate the opinions of Senators, 
both from the North and the South, delivered 
when that bill was pending; and I think he read 



from the remarks of ten or a dozen Senators, in 
which they stated in the strongest language that 
the question of the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise was of no practical importance, and that 
Slavery could never go to Kansas. It was then 
asserted, by some of the advocates of the bill, 
that every sensible man knew, and every candid 
man would admit, that soil and climate forbadt 
the introduction of slaves into the Nebraska-Kan- 
sas region, which is all above 36° 30''. Thif 
opinion was sustained, as the Senator from New 
Hampshire proved, by Mr. Pettit, of Indiana; 
Mr. Hunter, of Virginia; Mr. Toucey, of Connec- 
ticut ; Mr. Thomson, of New Jersey ; Mr. Brod- 
head, of Pennsylvania ; Mr. Badger, of North 
Carolina; Mr. Everett, of Massachusetts, (who 
quotes, as sustaining him in his opinion, " what 
everybody knew ; ") Mr. Douglas, of Illinois ; Mr. 
Dixon, of Kentucky; Mr. Jones, of Tennessee; 
and Mr. Cass, (who quotes all these.) All these 
Senators, except Mr. Everett, were advocates of 
the bill ; and it was proclaimed on all sides of tha 
Senate that no practical importance attached to 
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, because 
Kansas was not intended to be a slave Territory^ 
and Slavery would never go there. One Senator, 
on a previous occasion, had said, " I know of no 
' man who advocates the extension of Slavery 
' over country now free." This was very strong 
language, and it is to be found in a speech de- 
livered in the Senate, in 1849, by the author of 
the report upon which I am commenting, and 
afterwards reported in the Congressional Globe. 
It was proclaimed to the world, by the advocate* 
of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, that Kansas was to 
be a free Territory. It was said on the face of 
the bill that its intention was " nol to legislate 
Slavery into " the Territory. Then, let me ask, 
how did the Emigrant Aid Society, as is charged 
in this report, act " regardless of the rights and 
wishes of the people," as secured by the organic 
act, in aiding to settle Kansas with a Free State 
population? It was proclaimed to the citizena 
of Massachusetts, that Kansas fi'as to be a free 
State. Gentlemen from the South said they ex- 
pected nothing else. Still, when a society ig 
formed for the purpose of aiding emigrants to 
settle in it as a free Territory, and to make it a 
free State, they are charged with acting " regard- 
less of the principles " of the Kansas-Nebraslui 
act I 

Again, the report states that the society secured 
the color of legal authority to sanction their pro- 
ceedings, and acted " in perversion of the plain 
provisions of an act of Congress." The objects 
of the Emigrant Aid Society, as set out in the 
report, are said to be, to aid emigrants going to 
Kansas, with tbe expectation that it will be a free 
State. Was not that your expectation here? 
Now, it is charged upon those who went to work 
to accomplish the very object which you your- 
selves said was to be brought about, that they 
acted " in perversion of the plain provisions oi 
an act of Congress." A plain statement of facta 
is all that is necessary to expose the unfairnes* 
of this part of the report. Let the people— the 
candid and the considerate, those not led by im- 
pulse and prejudice, but by their reason and 



9 



judgmeHt — look at the facts, and ask themselves 
if the persons assisted on their way to Kansas. by 
^e Emigrant Aid Society did anything wrong — 
frthey violated any provision of the organic act 
when they went there to do that which, upon all 
tides, it was admitted was to be done ? 

Again, this report, after admitting the right of 
persons from any quarter to go to the Territory 
and settle as independent freemen, says : 

"But it is a very different thing where a State 
' creates a vast moneyed corporation for the pur- 

* pose of controlling the domestic institutions of 
' a distinct political community, fifteen hundred 
^ miles distant, and sends out the emigrants only 
' as a means of accomplishing its paramount 
' political objects. When a powerful corpora- 
' tion, with a capital of $5,000,000 invested in 
' houses and lands, in merchandise and mills, in 
' cannon and rifles, in powder and lead, in all the 
' implements of art, agriculture, and war, and 
' employing a corresponding number of men, all 
^ under the management and control of non-res- 

• ident directors and stockholders, who are au- 
*• thorized by their charter to vote by proxy to 
' the extent of fifty votes each, enters a distant 
•■ and sparsely-settled Territory with the fixed 
' purpose of wielding all in its power to control 
' the domestic institutions and destinies of the 
' Territory " — 

And so it would be a very different thing ; but 
hag any such thing occurred ? Never. The pro- 
ceedings of the Emigrant Aid Socieey, which are 
incorporated in the report, do not set forth any 
juch state of fact. They do not show that the 
Emigrant Aid Society litis invested a capital of 
$5,000,000, or one cent, in powder and ball, in 
cannon and rifle. Oh, no! The report is very 
far from charging that. Such a charge, if made, 
could be met and refuted. What is charged? 
It is alleged in the report that an Emigrant Aid 
Society was incorporated, &c. ; and then it de- 
claims against a society that should invest its 
means in powder and cannon, rifle and ball, to 
control the domestic institutions of a distant Ter- 
ritory. This is not charged directly upon the 
Emigrant Aid Society, but by inference only. 
When a society shall be found so engaged in 
fact, I will unite with the committee in opposi^ 
tion to its insurrectionary movements ; but I am 
not Quixotic enough to combat with windmills 
and shadows. 

A society relying upon force and ammunition 
for its success would more nearly resemble those 
which were organized in western Missouri; and 
the mistake on the part of the author of this 
elaborate report seems to have been in assigning 
the formation and existence of the society he de- 
scribed to a wrong locality. 

We miglit take up the charter of the Coloniza- 
tion Society, and, after reading it, proceed to de- 
claim against the abomination of getting up an 
organization to produce insurrection among the 
negroes ; but the Colonization Society and insur- 
rection would have no more to do with each other 
tliau good and evil. They are as far apart as the 
poles ; and so is the real action of the Emigrant 
Aid Society and that action which is argued 



against in this report. It is against assumptiona 
of this kind in the report that I am speaking. 

Here is another specimen of its fairness : 

" When the emigrants sent out by the Massa- 
' chusetts Emigrant Aid Company, and their af- 
' filiated societies, passed through the State of 
' Missouri, in large numbers, on their way to Kan- 
' sas, the violence of their language, and the un- 
' mistakable indications of their determined hos- 
' tility to the domestic institutions of that State, 
' excited apprehensions that the object of the 
' company was to abolitionize Kansas." 

What 1 " abolitionize Kansas 1 " It was said, on 
all sides of the Senate Chamber, that it was 
never meant to have Slavery go into Kansas. 
What is meant, then, by abolitionizing Kansas 7 
Is it abolitionizing a Territory already free, and 
which was never meant to be anything but free, for 
Free State men to settle in it? I cannot understand 
the force of such language ; but they were to ab- 
olitionize Kansas, according to this report ; and 
for what purpose ? " As a means for prosecuting 
' a relentless warfare on the institution of Slavery 
' within the limits of Missouri." Where is the 
evidence that such was the design ? I would like 
to see it. It is not in this report ; and if it ex- 
ists, I will go as far as the gentleman to put it 
down. I will neither tolerate nor countenance, 
by my action here or elsewhere, any society 
which is resorting to means for prosecuting a 
" relentless warfare upon the institution of Sla- 
very, within the limits of Missouri," or any other 
State. But there is not a particle of evidence of 
any such intention in the document which pro- 
fesses to set forth the acts of the Emigrant Aid 
Society, and which is incorporated into this re- 
port. But the report goes further, and says : 

" The natural consequence was, that immedi- 
' ate steps were taken by the people of the west- 
' ern counties of Missouri to stimulate, organ- 
' ize, and carry into effect, a system of emigration 
' similar to that of the Massachusetts Emigrant 
' Aid Company, for the avowed purpose of coun- 
' teracting the effects, and protecting themselves 
' and their domestic institutions from the conse- 
' quences of that company's operations. 

"The material difference in the character of 
' the two rival and conflicting movements con- 
' sists in the fact, that the one had its origin in 
' an aggressive, and the other in a defensive pol- 
' icy ; the one organized in pursuance of the pro- 
' visions and claiming to act under the authority 
' of a legislative enactment of a distant State, 
' whose internal prosperity and domestic security 
' did not depend upon the success of the move- 
' ment; while the other was the spontaneous 
' action of the people hdng in the immediate 
' vicinity of the theatre of operations, excited 
' by a sense of common danger to '.Le necessity 
' of protecting their own firesides from the appre- 
' hended horrors of servile insurrectiou and in- 
, ' testine war." 

I 1 could bring the President of the United States 
: as a witness against these assumptions ; for he 
' has told us, in his special message on Kansas 
' affairs, in alluding to the action of the Emigrant 
Aid Society, that its action was " far from ju3ti- 



10 



' fyincr the illegal and reprehensible counter- 
' movements which ensued." 

Now, sir, what are the facts? Will those two 
movements bear comparison at all ? Are they of 
the same character? The report sets forth, in its 
most objectionable feature, no doubt, the action 
of the Emigrant Aid Society, and it amounts sim- 
ply to this : that it was taking measures to aid 
persons on their way to Kansas for the settlement 
of the country, to remain there as settlers. There 
is not a particle of evidence in the report — it is 
not even asserted — that the emigrants who went 
forth under the patronage of the Emigrant Aid 
Society did not go to Kansas to reside. There 
may be an argument in the report against per- 
sons who went there under the pntronage of that 
society without the intention of residing; but 
there is no allegation that any such did go. 

Well, sir, what are the facts in reference to the 
organizations in the western counties of Missouri? 
I shall not detain the Senate by going over a mi- 
nute history of the transactions on that border. 
The Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Wilson,] 
a few days ago, did that; and he showed that 
men went into Kansas from Missouri in organ- 
ized companies, with music beating and banners 
flying; that they went to the polls, took posses- 
sion of them, and voted; that in that Territory, 
where there were but 2,877 voters when the cen- 
sus was taken in February, more than 6,000 votes 
were cast in the month of March following. He 
read from papers to show that the Missourians 
returned in companies to their homes, after the 
election was over. The matter was of public no- 
toriety. Everybody knew it. Is there any in- 
stance where the Emigrant Aid Society, or per- 
sons sent out under its patronage, ever drove a 
man from the polls? It is not pretended. Is 
there any comparison between the peaceable em- 
igrant who goes into a Territory to settle and re- 
side, and an army of invaders who go there to 
impose laws on its defenceless inhabitants? To 
show the spirit of the men upon the Missouri 
border, and those affiliated with them in Kansas. 
I will read an article from the Squatter Sovereign 
of May 29, 1855, which was before the Legisla- 
ture met ; this is it: 

"From reports now received of Reeder, he never 
' intends returning to our borders. Should he do 
'■ 60, we, without hesitation, say that our people 
' ought to hang him by the neck like a traitor- 
' ous dog as he is, so soon as he puts his unhal- 
' lowed feet upon our shores. 

" Vindicate your characters and the Territory; 
' and should the ungrateful dog dare to come 
' amoQg us again, hang him to the first rotten 
' tree. 

• "A military force to protect the ballot-box! 
' Let President Pierce or Governor Reeder, or any 
' other power, attempt such a course, in this or 
' any portion of the Union, and that day will 
' never be forgotten." 

The paper which contained this article has 
flaunting at its head these words : " In this pa- 
' per the laws of Congress are published by au- 
' thority." The editors of the paper are " String- 
' fellow and Kelly." It will be remembered that 



the election for members of the Legislature took 
place on the 30th of March, 1855. 

In the Squatter Sovereign of April 1. following, 
is published this article : 

"Independence, March .31, 1855. 

"Several hundred emigrants from Kansas hare 
' just entered our city. They were preceded bj 
' the Wesport and Independence brass bands. 
' They came in at the west side of the public 
' square, and proceeded entirely around it, the 
' bands cheering us with fine music, and the emi- 
' grants with good news. Immediately follow- 
' ing the bands were about two hundred horse- 
' men, in regular order; following these were one 
' hundred and fifty wagons, carriages, &c. They 
' gave repeated cheers for Kansas and Missouri. 
' They report that not an Anti-Slavery man will 
' be in the Legislature of Kansas. We have mad« 
' a cle.an sweep." 

Had the Emigrant Aid Society been guilty of 
half the outrages which are here published to the 
world with impunity by the Missourians, do yon 
believe the facts would have been smothered up 
by this report? The most objectionable features 
in the transactions of that Society are set forth ia 
the report; and is there anything in them to com- 
pare with what the Missourians boast of having 
done? Two hundred horsemen were following in 
the rear of the army as it returned from Kansas — 
the army which, in the language of Governor 
Reeder, while Governor, had " conquered and 
subjugated" the people of the Territory. And 
this we are told was an organization similar to 
the Emigrant Aid Society. 

Next, Mr. President, the report gives in detail 
the proceedings of Governor Reeder preparatory 
to the election, the orders which he issued for 
protecting the polls, and various matters con- 
nected with the election. Bear in mind that it 
does not deny this invasion from Missouri. No, 
sir, that fact is too well authenticated ; but it 
argues that the persons elected as members of th« 
Territorial Legislature received certificates of 
election from Governor Reeder, were recognised 
by him as a Legislature, and therefore its act» 
are binding! That is the substance of the argu- 
ment. It does not pretend to deny that the elec- 
tions were carried by fraud; that the people of 
Kansas were conquered and driven from the polls, 
as was publisiied and alleged all over the coun- 
try, and is a fact as well known to every intelli- 
gent man in the land as it is that the Eugiish and 
the Russians have lately been at war. 

But, sir, it is said that the laws parsed by this 
spurious Legislature are binding, and are to b« 
enforced at the point of the bayonet ; and tho3« 
who deny their validity are to be treated as in- 
surrectionists and traitors. The action of Govern- 
or Reeder is referred to as giving validity to tha 
Legislature of the oppressors. Cau that give any 
force to these acts, if the facts alleged be true J 
Does the report meet the real question at issue? 
If it be true that the elections in any Territory 
of this Union were carried by people from a 
neighboring State, or from a foreign country, and 
a Legislature were thereby imposed upon the 
people of the insulted Territory, I ask, ia there 



11 



a inaa in America who would iiave the hardihood 
to say that the acts of the Legislature must be 
obeyed, because the Governor of the Territory 
had recognised it, or because those elected by 
the invaders decided their election to be valid ? 
Of course the Legislature so decided. Did you 
ever know a tyrant or a despot trampling on the 
necks of his subjects deny his own right to do 
80? Such an act would be the most remarkable 
exhibition the world ever saw. And yet it is 
gravely argued in this report, that, because the 
oppressors decided that they had the right to 
oppress, we cannot, therefore, inquire into the 
fact whether they were oppressors or not. It 
has been contended, in debate here, that we are 
estopped from looking into the transaction, in 
consequence of the acts of Governor Reeder. 

Sir, who was Governor Reeder? An instru- 
ment in the hands of the Executive, appointed by 
the President of the United States, and removable 
at his will. It has been contended that the Kan- 
sas-Nebraska act established the principle of self- 
government and popular sovereignty in the people 
of the Territory ; but when you look into the act, 
you find that the Governor is not elected by the 
people, that they have no voice in his election, or 
in his removal, but that he is the mere instrument 
of the President, and liable to be removed at any 
moment. 

I deny that a Territorial Governor can make 
valid the acts of an assembly of usurpers, by 
recognising them as a Legislature. The great fact 
remains, and it is not met by the report, that the 
people of Kansas have been conquered, as the 
Governor himself once said, and a Legislature 
has been imposed upon them by violence. With- 
out denying this, the report, to use a legal phrase, 
demurs to the declaration, thereby admitting the 
oharge, but denying that it affords any reason 
why the acts of such a Legislature should not be 
enforced ! 

But, sir, an attempt is made to get rid of the 
odium justly attaching to ma:iy of the acts of 
this spurious Legislature, not by directly deny- 
ing the existence of the obnoxious acts, but by 
introducing into the report the proceedings of a 
Convention of the people of Kansas, composed 
chiefly of office-holders, as it would seem — the 
Governor, judges, marshal, and district attorney, 
being present — which undertook to say that the 
laws of the Legislature had been most grossly 
misrepresented. I wish to look a little at the 
j'ustification thus set up, and see whether it is 
warranted by the facts. That Convention de- 
dares : 

" It hag been charged, and widely circulated, 
' that the Legislature, in order to perpetuate their 
• rule, had passed a law prescribing the qualifica- 
' tion of voters, by which it is declared ' that any 
' one may vote who will swear allegiance to the 
' Fugitive Slave Law, the Kansas and Nebraska 
' Bill, and pay one dollar; such is declared to 
' be the evidence of citizenship, such the qualifi- 
' cation ot voters. In reply to this, we say that 
' no such law was ever passed by the Legislature. 
' The law prescribing the qualification of voters 
' expressly provides that to entitle a person to 
' vote, he must be twenty-one years of-age, an 



' actual in{j.iua.'..ii ^^f this Tirritory and of the 
' county or dijliict in which he offers to vote, 
' and shall have paid a Territorial tax. There ii 
' 710 laiv requiring him to pay a dollar tax as a quaU 
' ificatioti to vole." 

We happen to have the laws here, and I wish 
to call attention to some of their provisions. In 
chapter 138 of the Kansas Statutes is this pro- 
vision : 

" In addition to the provisions of the act enti- 
' tied ' An act for the collection of the revenue,' 
' the sheriff of each and every county shall, on 
' or before the first Monday of October, 1855, col- 
' lect the sum of one dollar, as a poll tux, from 
' each person in the said Territory of Kansas who 
' may be entitled to vote in said Territory, as is 
' provided in the said act to which this is supple- 
' mentary." 

In chapter 66 of the same book, the qualifica- 
tion of voters is prescribed as follows : 

" Every free white male citizen of the United 
' States, and every free male Indian who is made 
' a citizen by treaty or otherwise, and over the 
' age of twenty-one years, who shall be an in- 
' habitant of this Territory, and of the county or 
' district in which he offers to vote, and shall 
' have paid a Territorial tax, shall be a qualified 
' voter." 

Section 13 declares : 

" It shall be the duty of the sheriff to have his 
' tax-book at the place of holding elections, and 
' to receive, receipt for, and enter upon his tax- 
' book, all taxes which may be tendered him on 
' the day of any election." 

Do not these statutes prove the truth of the 
allegation which the office-holders' Convention 
has undertaken to deny ? Is it not true that any 
inhabitant may vote who will pay his dollar tax? 
Is not every voter required to pay the tax? Is 
not the sheriff required to be present at the polls 
to receive it? Is any residence necessary? Not 
a daj'. It is enough if he who claims the right 
of suffrage is at the time an "inhabitant" of the 
Territory and district where he offers to vote. 
We all understand how this word " inhabitant" 
may be construed so as to require nothing more 
than inhabitancy at the moment of voting. 

Mr. COLLAMER. I will remark to the gen- 
tleman, if he will allow me, that the law requi- 
ring a poll tax, and providing for its collection, 
was to take effect immediately ; and the other law 
which he has read was to take effect in October, 
1856. One was the dollar tax, and the other a 
fifty cent tax ; and provision was made for pay- 
ing at any time a man pleased. 

Mr. TRUMBULL. I think, then, that the alle- 
gations which have gone abroad are fully sus- 
tained by an examination of the statutes them- 
selves, and that the Convention of Kansas office- 
holders were themselves mistaken. Another 
section of the election law declares that any 
person ofl'ering to vote shall be presumed entitled 
,to vote; but if his right is challenged, he is re- 
quired to swear to support the Kansas-Nebraska 
act and the Fugitive Slave Law. There are many 
persons who would object to swearing to sustain 
the Fugitive Slave Law ; and are they to be de- 
prived of the right of suffrage on that account? 



12 



7 will not undertake to ju.,tifr people who set at 
defiance the Fugitive Slave Act. My opinion is, 
that under the Constitution of the country the 
tjwners of slaves have a right to a reasonable 
law for their reclamation when they escape. 

These are my views. I avow them here and 
everywhere. But, while such is my opinion, I do 
not think it proper to prevent an individual who 
thinks differently, and who believes the Fugitive 
Slave Law to be unconstitutional, from voting. 
There are persons, South as well as North, who 
believe it to be unconstitutional; and to require 
of such persons, or any person, an oath to sup- 
port it as a qualification to vote, is oppressive. 
There are features in the Fugitive Slave Act re- 
pulsive to many persons. No man wants to take 
an oath to assist in apprehending runaway ne- 
groes. 

Again, it is said, in reference to this election 
law: 

" It is difficult to see how a more guarded law 
' could be framed for the purpose of protecting 
' the purity of elections and the sanctity of the 
' ballot-box." 

It is difficult to see how a more guarded law 
could be framed than that which permits any male 
citizen of twenty-one years of age to vote, who is 
an inhabitant of the Territory, and pays a dollar ! 
That is a guarded law, in the opinion of the ofli- 
cials of Kansas. Again, they say : 

" It has also been charged against the Legisla- 
' ture, that they elected all the officers of the 
' Territory for six years. This is without any 
' foundation. They elected no officer for six 
' years ; and the only civil officers they retain the 
' election of, that occur to us at present, are the 
' Auditor and Treasurer of State, and the district 
' attorneys, who hold their offices for four, and 
' not six years. By the organic act, the commis- 
' Bions issued by the Governor to the civil officers 
' of the Territory all expired on the adjournment 

* of the Legislature. To prevent a failure in the 

* local administration, and from necessity, the 
' Legislature made a number of temporary ap- 
' pointments, such as probate judge, and two 
' county commissioners, and a sheriff lor each 
' county. The probate judge and county com- 
' missioners constitute the tribunal for the trans- 
' action of county business, and are invested with 
' the power to appoint justices of the peace, con- 
' stables, county surveyors, recorder, and clerk, 
' &c. Probate judges, county commissioners, 
' sheriffs, &c., are all temporary appointments, 
' and are made elective by the people at the first 
' annual election in 1857." 

Now for the facts : chapter 93, section 4, of 
the Kansas Laws, is as follows : 

" Every justice of the peace shall hold his office 
' for the term of five years, and until his succes- 
' sor is duly chosen and qualified." 

That is very plain. Justices of the peace are 
to hold tbfir offices for five years, and that is, 1 
suppose, considered but temporarily in Kansas. 
Another act, chapter 37, provides for the organi- 
zation of Arrapahoe county, and section 2 is as 
follows: "Allen P. Tibetts is hereby appointed 
judge of the probate court of Arrapahoe county." 

Section 4 declares : 



" The said judge of probate shall have power 
' to appoint such officers of the county as are 
' specified in this act, and not appointed, and 
^justify the same. All such appointments made 
' by the judge of probate shall be entered of 
' record." 

Section 8 declares : 

" The said judge of probate shall have fub 
' power to appoint a justice or justices of the 
' peace within and for said county. Section 9. 
' There shall be appointed by said judge one 
' sheriff, one treasurer, (who shall be ex offkio 
' assessor,) and one surveyor." 

The Legislature create a judge, who is author- 
ized to appoint the sheriff, the treasurer, justices 
of the peace for five years — all the officers : and 
this is what is denominated the " self-govern- 
ment," and " popular sovereignty," guarantied by 
the Kansas-Nebraska act to the people of those 
Territories, and these are the laws which are to 
be enforced at the point of the bayonet. 

I come now to a portion of this report with 
which I am very much gratified, a part of it which 
I can endorse, as enunciating the true doctrine in 
reference to the rights of a people in a Terri- 
tory ; but it is very much at war with that other 
doctrine which has been proclaimed throughout • 
the land on nearly every stump in the West, that 
the people of a Territory possess the power of 
self-government and the right of sovereignty. 
The question has been asked over and over again, 
by every village politician advocating the Kansas- 
Nebraska act, " Why does not a man possess just 
as much power to govern himself when he moves 
out of a State into a Territory, as he did when he 
lived in a State ? " The question has been asked 
of assembled thousands, " Do you lose your senses 
when you go into a Territory, that you cannot 
govern yourselves ? " The '' great principle " of 
the Kansas-Nebraska bill was said to be, that it 
guarantied " sovereignty " and " self-government" 
to the people of the Territory. The idea tha^ 
self-government could be derived, and sovereign- 
ty conferred, was, of course, an absurdity ; but 
" self-government and popular sovereignty " were 
captivating terms, and well calculated to mislead. 
They have answered their purpose, and are now 
cast aside. The report says : 

"The sovereignty of a Territory remains in 
' abeyance, suspended in the United States, in 
' trust for the people, until they shall be admit- 
' ted into the Union as a State." 

Never was a truer sentiment advanced ; and 
I hope never again to hear of "squatter sover- 
' eignty," " popular sovereignty," and " self-gov- 
' ernment," as applied to tiie people of a Territory 
under a Territorial Government; but the very 
next sentence of the rejjort has the word "self- 
government" crowded into it, as if it would not 
do to omit it altogether. Hence it is asserted, 
that the people of the Territory " are entitled tx) 
' enjoy and exercise all the privileges and rights 
' of nclf-governmenl, in subordination to the Coo- 
' stitution of the United States, and in obedience 
' to their organic law, passed by Congress in 
' piirsuance of that instrument." 

Nobody ever doubted that they had a right to 
exercise all the privileges, not of s<:Z/"-govcrnmeQt 



13 



but of government, conferred upon thein by the ■ 
organic act. If the word " sell" bad been left 
out, the sentejice would have been complete, and j 
consistent with the one which precedes it The 
report says : 

" These rights and privileges are all derived 
' from the Constitution, through the act of Gon- 
' gress, and must be exercised and enjoyed in 
' subjection to all the limitations and restrictions 
■ which that Constitution imposes. Hence it is 
' clear that the people of the Territory have no 
' inherent sovereign right under the Constitution 
' of the United Slates to annul the laws and resist 
' the authority of the Territorial Government 
' which Congress has established in obedience to 
' the Constitution." 

There is the whole doctrine clearly stated. 
The people of a Territory have no inherent rights 
to pass laws except in accordance with the charter 
granted them by Congress. This was the doc- 
trine of the fathers of the Republic ; and I rejoice 
exceedingly that the committee have come to 
this conclusion in their report. I hope we shall 
hear no more about this idea of sovereignty in a 
Territory — an idea utterly inconsistent with its 
existence as a part of the Union. Two sovereign- 
ties cannot exist within the same dominion. One 
:aust be subject to the other. 

The committee attribute the origin of the diffi- 
v-ulties in Kansas to an attempt to violate the 
principle of the organic act. Wh&i X\\\5 pri?iciple 
is, the report does not explain, except in the con- 
fused language of the Kansas-Nebraska act, 
which, as has already been shown, is understood 
Ufferently in different parts of the Union. 

Sir, I do not trace these difficulties to violations 
of the mongrel principle of, the Kansas-Nebraska 
act. That act contains no definite, fixed, and 
certain principle. It is admitted in the report 
Uiat all the powers of the people of the Territory 
are in subordination to Congress, and are held 
in abeyance by Congress so long as the Territory 
lasts. There is no principle established by the 
Territorial act, which has been violated. That 
act professed to throw the whole Territory open 
to competition, or rather the authors of the bill 
professed to believe, and informed the country, 
that Slavery was not intended to go into Kansas 
or Nebraska ; that nobody expected it. It was 
but natural, then, that those persons who were 
opposed to Slavery, and who preferred to live in 
a community where Slavery did not exist, should 
have flocked to that Territory which they were 
told was to be free. This violated no principle 
of the law. 

What, then, sir, is the occasion, of the excite- 
ment now existing throughout the length and 
breadth of this land? I will tell you. It has its 
origin solely in that one fatal mistake made two 
years ago, when the Missouri Compromise was 
repealed. If the policy adopted in 1850, which 
was to leave the question of Slavery in a country, 
when organized into a Territory, in the condition 
Congress found it at the time, had been adhered 
t», there would have been no difficulty ; wo should 
have had no Slavery agitation ; and at this time 
there would have been no occasion for procla- 
mations from the President, nor orders from the 



Secretary of War, to enforce the laws in any part 
of the country at the pojnt of the bayonet. The 
policy of 1850 was a let-alone policy. Congress 
at that time found the territory which we had 
acquired during the Mexican war with an exist- 
ing law prohibiting Slavery; and what did Con- 
gress do? Did it repeal that law? Certainly 
not; but it organized the Territories of Utah and 
New Mexico, leaving the law as it found it. It 
was then contended on this floor by Senators 
North and South, and I could read by the hour 
from the opinions of the most distinguished men 
of this body at that time, to show, that the Mex- 
ican laws by which Slavery was abolished wero 
lefl in full force. That was the opinion of the 
distinguished Senator from Michigan. 

The Committee on Territories, who reported the 
first Nebraska bill, stated that it would be a 
departure from the policy adopted in 1850, which 
was to leave the Territories of Utah and New 
Mexico as Congress found them, with the Mexican 
law untouched, if they were now to introduce a 
provision to repeal the eighth section of the act 
for admitting Missouri into the Union : and, there- 
fore, they recommended not to repeal that pro- 
vision. Afterwards different counsels prevailed, 
and it is to those different counsels that we owe 
all the excitement, and all the agitation, and all 
the danger, which have grown out of this ques- 
tion. Such was the opinion of the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan at the time the Nebraska 
bill was under consideration ; and, in the com- 
mencement of his remarks on that occasion, he 
expresses his regret that a provision should have 
been introduced to repeal the Missouri Compro- 
mise, and open again the agitation of this dan- 
gerous question. 

Now, sir, what is the remedy ? It is obvious. 
If we could approach this question calmly and 
dispassionately, without excitement ; if Senators 
could be actuated by that feeling which seemed 
to animate them some years ago, when they said 
they had no expectation of Slavery going into 
Kansas, and which animated our fathers when 
the Missouri Compromise was adopted, it seems to 
me they would consent to restore it, and in so 
doing they would, in my opinion, in thirty days 
give peace to the country. If we could forget 
the excitement growing out of misapprehension, 
in different parts of the country, as to the views 
entertained in other parts, and look upon thi? 
question as friends of the Union, as lovers of 
the Constitution, as men willing to do all that 
lies in our power to perpetuate the glorious herit- 
age which has been handed down to us, I think 
we should be willing to do this. I shall not, 
however, make the proposition, for the reason 
that I cannot see any probability of its passage 
ac this time. It should have my vote, and I 
should be exceedingly glad to see it proposed 
with a prospect of success, and coming from 
Senators residing in the South. 

But, sir, if that cannot be done, what is it our 
duty to do? Shall we sit still and leave these 
obnoxious laws which have been alluded to, and 
many others to which I have not alluded, but to 
which the attention of the Senate has been hereto- 
fore called-in this discussion, in full force ? Is that 



14 



atatute to remain in force in the Territory which 
makes it a penal offence, punishable by impris- 
onment for two years, for a per=!on to say that 
Slavery does not rightfully exist in Kansas ? 
Why, ^ir, before God, I believe it does not right- 
fully exist there. Every man who believes that 
the Territorial Legislature which sat in Kansas 
was imposed upon the people by fraud and vio- 
lence — that it was a usurpation — and that Sla- 
very cannot exist without a municipal law to 
protect it, must believe that Slavery does not 
rightfully exist in Kansas ; and yet he is liable 
to punishment for avowing that opinion ; and 
not only for avowing it, but for circulating a 
document that avows it ! 

Instead of meeting this question in a fraternal 
spirit, with kindness upon all sides, we hear it 
said that these laws are to be enforced at the point 
of the bayonet; and the President is commended 
by Senators for the course he has taken in refer- 
ence to this matter. Now, I wish to review the 
President's action upon this subject. I know it 
has been said that the laws are to be enforced, 
and that we must put down traitors and insur- 
rectionists. True, sir ; but we must find traitors 
before we hang them ; there must be an insur- 
rection before we undertake to quell it. As yet, 
that state of things has not arisen, in my judg- 
ment, which makes it proper to denounce as trai- 
tors the settlers of Kansas, who have resorted to 
the only means left in their power to escape the 
despotism which is being imposed upon them. I 
do not understand them to have organized any 
resistance in the General Government. I recog- 
nise the authority of Congress to govern the Ter- 
ritories of this country while they remain Ter- 
ritories, and .deny the right of that or any other 
Territory to set at defiance the action of Congress. 
Were the people of Kansas to do that, and levy 
war against the United States, they would be 
guilty of treason, and the whole power of the 
Government should be exerted to reduce them to 
subjection and enforce the laws. But that case 
has never arisen, and I trust it never may. It is 
a very different thing from treason for the people 
of Kansas to resist the acts of usurpers and 
tyrants. Sir, we are told, by an authority little 
less than Divine, that " Resistance to tyrants is 
obedience to God." If the Legislature which 
gat in Kansas was composed of men who were 
elected, in defiance of the act of Congress, by an 
army of invaders from abroad, I say there is no 
obligation on anybody to obey their laws; and 
so far from condemning as insurrectionists those 
who resist them, we should strengthen the hands 
of the men who are seeking to set them aside. 

The message and documents the President has 
sent us are said to contain "all the information 
on the subject" of Kansas affairs in the Depart- 
ment of State. This was on the 18th of February, 
1856. We have, then, before us all the informa- 
tion in the possession of the Executive on the 
I8th of February last. 

To show how the people of Kansss have not 
only been imposed upon by a spurious Legisla- 
inre, but also the means which have been resorted 
to to embarrass and place them in a false positioc 
before the country, and in an attitude of hostility 



to the General Government, I beg attention par- 
ticularly to the documents which have been laid 
before us ; and I will undertake to show, to the 
satisfaction of any intelligent mind, that there was 
no just occasion for the invasion of Kansas in 
December last ; that it was gotten up, as appears 
from the documents themselves, upon false ru- 
mors, and without sufGcient cause. The first wt 
know of this difficulty is in a telegraphic dispatch 
from the Governor, Wilson Shannon, as follows : 

" Westpout, Missouri, December 1, 1855. 

" I desire authority to call on the United States 
' forces at Leavenworth to preserve the peace of 
' this Territory ; to protect the sherifi" of Dougla* 
' county, and enable him to execute the legal pro- 
' cess in his hands. If the laws are not executed. 
' civil war is inevitable. An armed force of on« 
' thousand men, with all the implements of war, 
' it is said, are at Lawrence. They have rescued 
' a prisoner from the sheriff, burnt houses, and 
' threatened the lives of citizens. Immediate 
' assistance is desired. This is the only means 
' to save bloodshed. 

" Particulars by mail. Wilson Sha.vnoh. 

" His Excellency Franklin Pierce." 

Now, sir, on what was Governor Shannon's 
dispatch founded? On Sheriff Jones's letter, 
telling him that Branson, a person arrested on a 
peace-warrant, had been rescued by an armed 
body of between fbrty and fifty men, as the Gov- 
ernor writes; but of between thirty and forty, 
as Buckley, who was present at the time of th« 
rescue, swears. 

This was the immediate and the main cause of 
that modest request of SheriS' Jones for " three 
' thousand men to aid him in the execution of the 
' warrants in his hands, and to protect him and 
' his prisoner from violence." The prisoner alluded 
to was Coleman, who had killed Dow, but who 
does not appear from the papers communicated 
to have been at the time in the sheriff's custody. 

The affidavits of Jones the sheriff, of Buckley, 
who sued out the peace-warrant against Branson, 
of Hargis, and the letter of Clarke to the Governor, 
all bear date subsequent to the Governor's dis- 
patch to the President, and could not, therefore, 
have furnished the grounds on which it was sent. 
To go still further back, we find there was a very 
slight excuse, either for the suing out of th« 
peace- warrant, or the conduct of Jones in arrest- 
ing Branson. At the risk of making myself some- 
what tedious, I will read a portion of Buckley's 
affidavit, made on the 6th of December, 1855, ai 
he gives the origin of the siege of Lawrence, 
lie swears : 

" That he loas informed on good authority, and 
' which he believed to be true, that Jacob Bran- 
' son had threatened his lifo, both licfore and 
' after the difficulty between Coleman and Dow, 
' which led to the death of the latter. 1 under- 
' stood that Branson swore that deponent should 
' not breath" the pure air three minutes after I 
' returned, this deponent at this timetuivinggono 
'down to Westport, in Missouri; that it was 
' 'hese threats^, made in various shapes, thatmad* 
' this deponent really fear his lif-.', and which in- 
' duced Hir to mak»' affiJavi*, against the "(aid 



15 



I • Branson, and procure a peace-warran* to issue, 

' and be placed in the hands of the sheriflF of 

' Douglas county ; that this deponent was with 

the said sheriff (S. J. Jones) at the time the 

' said Branson was arrested, which took place 

' about two or three o'clock in the morning; that 

' Branson was in bed when he was arrested by 

' said sheriff; th^i-t no pistol or other weapon was 

' presented at the said Branson, by any one; that 

' after the arrest, and after the company with the 

' sheriff had proceeded about live miles in the 

' direction of Lecorapton, the county seat of 

' Douglas county,the said sberiffand his posse were 

' set upon by about between thirty and forty men, 

' who came out from behind a house, all armed 

♦ with Sharpe's rifles, and presented their guns 

' cocked, and called out who they were ; and said 

' Branson replied, that they had got him a prisoner ; 

' and these armed men called on him to come 

' away. Branson then went over on their side, 

' and Sheriff Jones said they were doing some- 

' thing they would regret hereafter, in resisting 

' the laws ; that he was sheriff of Douglas county, 

'and as such had arrested Branson. These armed 

.'.men replied, that they had no laws, no sheriff, 

ind no Governor; and that they knew no laws 

out their guns. The sheriff, being overpowered, 

jaid to these men, that if they took him by force 

jf arras, he had no more to say, or something 

:o that import, and then we rode off." 

(Jones's account of the forcible rescue agrees 
bstantially with that of Buckley. Buckley's 
mplaint against Branson was founded upon 
imor. It scarcely amounted to sufficient to 
stify a justice of the peace in issuing a war- 
nt. When the warrant was issued, it afforded 
I sort of excuse for the arrest of Branson at the 
ne and place and in the manner it was made. 
Branson was the friend of Dow, who had been 
lied a few days before by Coleman, who had 
caped; the neighborhood was excited, party 
eling ran high, Branson was quietly sleeping 
home, when, at the dead hour of night, his 
celling was entered by Jones and his posse of 
n men, of whom Buckley, who had sworn out 
e peace-warrant, was one; the arrrest was made, 
d Branson was hurried off in the darkness of 
ght in the direction of a distant county seat, 
is neighbors, learning that a body of men had 
itered Branson's house, had sojzed and were 
irrying him they knew not whither, nor for what 
irpose, very naturally gathered together to learn 
at these things meant. While assembled, 
)ne3 and his party, having Branson in custody, 
^ime passing by. The assembled neighbors call 
Hit in the darkness to know who is there, and, 
•^ being answered by Branson, they tell him to 
eome with them, whi^jh he quietly does; and this 
ia the rescue of the piisoner, to recapture whom, 
and for his own protection when no man pursued. 
Sheriff Jones calls on Governor Shannon for three 
thousand men, and the Governor responds to his 
call by issuing orders to Generals Richardson 
and Strickler to fly to his protection with the 
militia, and calls on the President for the addi- 
tional assistance of United States troops. 

Governor Shannon, in his letter of December 
llt-h to the President, says that not moro than J 



td 



h^ 



three or four hundred of the militia of the Terri- 
tory assembled at the call of Generals Richardson 
and Strickler, but that their forces were soon 
swelled by men from Missouri to near two thou- 
sand men, and that "the great'danger to be ap- 
' prehended was from an unauthorized attack on 
' the town of Lawrence." What a change was 
wrought on Governor Shannon, when he saw 
how he had been imposed upon by false rumors, 
and learned the real truth ! His great fear now 
was, that the law and order men, whom he had 
unnecessarily assembled for the protection of 
Jones, would make an unauthorized attack upon 
the people of Lawrence! Governor Shannon re- 
paired to that place, satisfied himself that no one 
against whom a writ had been issued was in 
Lawrence, had no difficulty in coming to a satis- 
factory arrangement with its inhabitants as to 
the execution of the laws, which a large majority 
of the people claimed they had always been will- 
ing to uphold, though they denied the validity of 
the acts of the bogus Legislature. A treaty was 
then concluded between Governor Shannon and 
the people of Lawrencel They were authorized 
by him to protect themselves against the army 
assembled at Wakarusa under Generals Richard- 
ardson and Strickler, which subsequently dis- 
banded, and the disturbances in the Territory 
were quieted, as the President tells us in his spe- 
cial message, '■'■ in a salisfaclory manner." The his- 
tory of this whole disturbance, from its inception 
in the issuing out of a peace-warrant for an iu- 
sufHcient cause, till the final disbanding of the 
invading army, when the Missourians returned 
grumblingly to their homes, has more the appear- 
ance of a conspiracy, on the part of the oIBcials 
and others in Kansas, to place the Free State 
settlers in a false position, that an excuse might 
be found for attacking and exterminating them, 
than of an honest effort to enforce the laws. 

Branson seems to have been a quiet, inoffen- 
sive man, who needed not to have been put under 
bonds to keep the peace, when he was fleeing as 
for his life. Sheriff" Jones needed no army fbr 
his protection, for no one seems to have been dis- 
posed to molest him ; nor was an army necessary 
tor the maintenance of law in Lawrence, for the 
people professed themselves willing to submit to 
the laws, save those of the assumed Legislature, 
which, by the treaty of peace, which seems to 
have been satisfactory to the President, they were 
not required to acknowledge. It is manifest that 
Governor Shannon acted without sufficient cause 
when he assembled an army, cbiefly of Missou- 
rians, to enforce the laws agtiinst the citizens of 
Lawrence; and this is virtually acknowledged by 
the treaty of peace which he subsequently made. 

The disturbances of December last, the Presi- 
dent tells us, " were speedily quieted, without the 
effusion of blood, and in a salisfactory manner." 
What occurred afterward.^, and before the 11th of 
February last, to justify the President in issuing 
a proclamation, {jUicing Hie troops of the United 
States at the service of Governor Shannon? We 
have all the papers before us. and they contain 
no application from Governor Shannon f()r United 
States forces, since that of December last in refer- 
ence to a disturbance which was satisfactorily 



16 



terminated long before the proclamation was 
issued. I take it, then, the proclamatioa must 
have been issued upon' the information communi- 
cated to the President by Lane and Robinson, 
informing him that an "overwhelming force of 
the citizens of Missouri " were organizing upon 
the borders of Kansas, for the purpose of demol- 
ishing the towns and murdering the unoffending 
Free "state citizens of the Territory. If it was 
upon that information that the proclamation was 
founded, then it is cruelly unjust to the Free State 
men who asked for protection ; for it is mainly 
directed, not against aggression from Missouri, 
but against some fancied insurrection within the 
Territory, when there is no evidence of any such 
contemplated insurrection in any of the docu- 
ments communicated ; and we have all the in- 
formation which was in the State Department at 
the time the proclamation was issued. 

But the order of the Secretary of War to Col- 
onels Sumner and Cooke is still more objection- 
able than the President's .prpclamatiou. The 
material part of it is as follows : 

" If therefore the Governor of the Territory, 
' finding the ordinary course of judicial proceed- 
' ings and the powers vested in United States 
' marshals inadequate for the suppression of in- 
' surrectionary combinations or armed resistance 
' to the execution of the law, should make requi- 
' sition upon you to furnish a military force to 
' aid him in the performance of that official duty, 
•' you are hereby directed to employ for that pur- 
' pose such part of your command as may in your 
'judgment consistently be detached from their 
' ordinary duty." 

Would the officers to whom this order is direct- 
ed be authorized to go to the assistance of the 
Governor, to repel the expected invasion from 
Missouri, should it be attempted ? If not, and 
ie order is only designed to allow the United 
Itates forces to be used to prevent the Free State 
Men within the Territory from orgmizing and 
arming to protect themselves against the appre- 
hended invasion, it is both cruel and unjust, I 
can hardly think the order could have been so 
intended. But the point has been made before, 



and never satisfactorily answered. The or.kr ii 
unfortunately worded, to suy the least; and it i»' 
much to be regretted that it should have l)een r»a' 
framed as to give color even to the idea that th« 
General Government was more willing to use its 
power to put down insurrections in the Territory 
than invasion from without. Senators have just- 
ified and commended the entire action of the Ex- 
ecutive in reference to Kansas affairs ; but, for 
my part, I can see no justification in the docu> 
ments before us for such a proclamation and such 
orders as have been issued. When an invading 
army marched into Kansas, and controlled it» 
elections by driving its inhabitants from the polls 
we were told the President had no such officia 
knowledge of the fact as would justify his inter- 
ference to protect the ballot-box. How is it that 
he could neither see nor hear of those invasions, 
in utter disregard of an act of Congress, and yet 
is so ready, without any official information, tc 
take notice of an opposition to the enactments o'. 
a spurious Territorial Legislature ? The fact that 
Governor Reeder did not officially notify him ol 
the Missouri invasions is no excuse. It is the dutj 
of the President to see that the laws of the Uni- 
ted States be faithfully executed ; and if Reedei 
neglected his duty, he should have removed him. 
It cannot be that the President was uninformed 
of the manner in which the elections in Kansa» 
were carried ; the facts were proclaimed through- 
out the land, and known to everybody. 

I would not censure the President for making 
use of the army of the United States to prevent 
civil war in Kansas, or to put down resistance to 
acts of Congress ; but I hope never to see th» 
United States soldiers engaged in forcing sulj- 
mission to the barbarous and inhuman acts of 
that spurious Legislature which was forced upor 
the people of Kansas by violence and again; 
their will. As a remedy for existing evils, 
Congress will not restore the Missouri Compr<|- 
mise, it ought at least to annul the present Terr 
torial acts, and give the actual settlers an oppoi- 
tunity to elect a Legislature for themselves— ik 
privilege which they assert has thus far be<ii 
denied them, and which assertion this report do • 
not Tenture to deny. 



Ljt 




014 136 025 5 



